Paper

The Melua Village: Evidence of Acculturation of Harappan Traders in Late Third
Millennium Mesopotamia?
Author(s): Simo Parpola, Asko Parpola, Robert H. Brunswig and Jr.
Source: Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 20, No. 2 (May,
1977), pp. 129-165
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3631775
Accessed: 26-02-2017 13:23 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Economic and
Social History of the Orient
This content downloaded from 193.188.46.75 on Sun, 26 Feb 2017 13:23:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. XX, Part II
THE MELUHHA VILLAGE

EVIDENCE OF ACCULTURATION OF HARAPPAN TRADERS
IN LATE THIRD MILLENNIUM MESOPOTAMI

BY
SIMO PARPOLA, ASKO PARPOLA and

ROBERT H. BRUNSWIG, Jr.
INTRODUCTION
Mesopotamian and Persian Gulf interrelations with the l

Meluhha during the third and second millennia B.C. have o
the attention of numerous scholars in recent decades. The location
of Meluhha has been the subject of much controversy that has

yet ceased. As a working premise we accept the most widely h
theory according to which Meluhha is to be identified with the In
civilization and its adjacent areas on the basis of various geographic
clues and the general nature of Meluhhan articles of commerce
The very name Meluhha itself seems to support this conclusion 2).
At present, little is known about the earliest Indus-Near East
trade contacts. Most probably they originated during the pro
urban phase of the Harappan culture, forming a minor compon
in the recently documented trade network of the early third millenn
*) For the bibliographical abbreviations used in this paper see R. Borger, Hand
buch der Keilschriftliteratur II (Berlin i975) p. XI ft.; RipG -= Repertoire Giqograp
(Bd. 2 = D. O. Edzard und G. Farber, Die Orts- und Gewissernamen der Zeit
3. Dynastie von Ur [Wiesbaden 1974]). The authors wish to record their grat
to Prof. D. O. Edzard (Miinchen), who read the article in its draft stage and (poin
out errors as well as supplementary evidence) remarkably contributed to its pr
form, to Dr. Fatma Y11diz of the Istanbul Arkeoloji Miizeleri, who supplied
photographs of the new texts published in this article and conveyed their p
cation permission, and to Profs. G. Pettinato (Rome) and K. Deller (Heidelb
who assisted in the collection of the Meluhha references.
I) See notably W. F. Leemans, Trade (1960), I59 ff.; idem, JESHO 1xi (1968),
171 ff.; M. E. L. Mallowan, Iran 3 (I965), I ff.; H. Schmakel, FF 40 (I966), 143 ff.;
I. J. Gelb, RA 64 (1970), i ff.; G. Pettinato, Mesopotamia 7 (1972), 43 if.; Romila
Thapar,JESHO x8 (I975), I-42; D. K. Chakrabarti,JESHO i8 (i975), 337 ff.
2) Cf. A. and S. Parpola, StOr 46 (I975), 20zo5 f.
9
13o S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.
Iranian Plateau and Mesopotamia 3). We do know that Indus artifacts

began appearing in Mesopotamian sites by Old Akkadian times,
and that they are typical of the mature (urban) phase of the Indus
civilization 4). Mature Harappan seaports have been located in Gujarat
and the Makran coast 5), and several Harappan representations of
ships are known.
The Meluhhans are first mentioned in Mesopotamian texts in an
inscription of Sargon (2334-2279 B.C.) referring to Meluhhan ships
docked at his capital, the city of Akkad 6). Less well known is a late
Sargonic tablet datable to ca. zaoo B.C.7), which mentions a man
with an Akkadian name entitled "the holder (? li-dab,) of a Meluhha
ship" 8). In addition, an Akkadian cylinder seal bears the inscription
3) Cf. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, JAOS 92 (197z), 222-229; idem and M. Tosi,

East and West 23 (1973), 2zI-58.
4) Cf. Leemans (1960), 1.c.; M. Wheeler, The Indus Civilization 3 (Cambridge
1968), I1o-12o; E. C. L. During Caspers, Mesopotamia 7 (1972), 167-191.
5) Cf. G. F. Dales, Antiquity 36 (I962), 86-92; S. R. Rao, Expedition7:3 (1965),
30-37; Schmikel 1.c. (1966) and During Caspers l.c. (1972).
6) See H. Hirsch, AfO 20 (1963), 37 f., 49; cf. also A. L. Oppenheim,JAOS 74
(1954), 15.
7) G. G. Hackman, BIN VIII 298. For the approximate date of the document
cf. I. J. Gelb, MAD 4 (I970), p. XV f. and W. Farber, WO 8 (i975), 1x8 ff.
8) The text reads in its entirety as follows (in a rendering kindly made available
to us by Prof. Edzard): 6 i-dux0-g[a] sil eme-[gi7] 2 lugal- i-de6-a 3
lugal-sag-e " kar-[s]IG4kia 5 Su ba-ti 6 [I+]i i silh 7 da-ti 8 ld-dab,(?)-
m i-me-luh- a-ka 9 I 1 sila i-nu-sa-tu 10 2 iti "6 Liter gutes 01, sum[er.
(Mass)], die Lugal-Sa gebracht hat, hat Lugal-sage in K. in Empfang genommen.
[i+]i Liter 01: D~di, der... eines Meluhha-Bootes. I Liter 01: Inu-Sadi. Monat 2."
Forline 8 cf. Edzard, ZA 56 (1964), 278: "Kaum 16i-dab5-... "der ... genommen
hat", da das *ld-...-dab,-ba heissen miisste." Note, however, 16i-dab,-mi
"Schiffsaneigner" in the Tammuzliturgy VS II 35 ii 7 (cf. A. Salonen, StOr i I/i
[1940] 4) and the two examples of mi...dab, "to take hold of a ship" (Ukg I
iv 3 f. and 4-5 iii 5 f. [Sollberger, Corpus p. 48 ff.l) quoted by Salonen, 1.c. Accordingly,
we would take dab, in the present context as an 'active' participle and assign the
compound 16-dab5 the meaning "appropriator", or the like; the word would
accordingly be more or less the opposite of the social designation di,(DUMU)-
dabs/dib-ba, lit. "taken child". In a letter of 9.9.1975, Edzard comments on this
interpretation: "1 i-KU, falls = 16 i-dab , kann natiirlich ein 'aktives' Partizip sein.
Nur diirfte es wohl nicht "Eigentiimer" bedeuten, da hierfiir schon das Wort
lugal (= bilum) festliegt."
THE MELUIjHjA VILLAGE 13 I
I'u--li-Ju/ eme-bal me-luh-haki "Su-ilisu, Meluhha in

Taken together, the presence of Meluhhan ships, a s
and an interpreter help to establish the physical contact, o
of Meluhha with Mesopotamia in Akkadian times 10).
Further evidence for continued contact after the fall of the Akkadian
empire may be found in the inscriptions of Gudea of LagaS (2143-

2124 B.C.). These state explicitly that "the Melulhans came up (or
down) from their country" to supply wood and other raw materials for
the construction of the main temple of Gudea's capital 1). Other
passages in these inscriptions refer to luxury items imported from
Meluhha and make it evident that trade of a direct nature was still
taking place between Gudea's state and Meluhha on a fairly large

scale 12).
The above textual evidence of direct Meluhhan-Mesopotamian
interaction can be generally correlated with archaeological evidence
of Indus artifacts in the Near East. More than thirty seals are known
or believed to have come from Near Eastern contexts and related
more or less closely to ones found in the Indus valley 13). Unfortuna
only a handful of these have come from datable contexts and even
largely from dubious ones. Of the ten seals from Mesopotamia t
can be dated with any degree of certainty, eight have been attribu
9) Edzard, AfO 22 (1968), 15 no. 15.33. Oppenheim, Anc. Mes. [Chicago 1

355 24, argues that the title eme-bal designated its bearer as one who trans
from his native into a foreign language.
io) Note also literary passages such as "The Curse of Akkade", 40 ff. ("In
days of Narim-Suen...ships kept bringing goods to Sumer...The Meluhhian
the men of the black country, brought to him all kinds of exotic wares"; s
Falkenstein,ZA 57, 43 f.); "Enki and the World Order", 126 and 2x6 f. (Fa
kenstein, ZA 56, 44f.); Kramer, ISETI, 211: Ni 2126+ i 7// 212: Ni 130208
etc. [Edzard]; cf. in general, Kramer, Sumerians, p. 278 fif.
ii) Cyl. Aix 19;xv 5;xvizzf.; B xiv I3.
I2) See A. Falkenstein, AnOr 30 (1966), 48.
13) Cf. C. J. Gadd, Proceedings of the British Academy 18 (1932), 191-21o; W.
Hallo and B. Buchanan, Fs Landsberger (AS 16, Chicago 1965), 204ff.;Durin
Caspers, art. cit.; R. H. Brunswig and A. Parpola, "New Indus type and re
seals from the Near East" (publication pending).
132 S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.
to the Sargonid period 14) and two to the later Isin-Larsa times 15).
The Akkadian dynasty thus emerges as the most prolific in indicating
Indus-Mesopotamian contact. That period, as noted above, also has
textual references, though admittedly limited, attesting to direct sea
trade with the foreign country of Melulhha. In the immediate post-
Akkadian time, the reign of Gudea in many ways marks an attempt
to preserve the basic character, if not the actual territory, of the previous
Akkadian dynasty. Textual evidence indicates that trade with Melubba
continued, although no recognizable Indus artifacts have been re-
covered from Gudean contexts. However, this is not surprising given
the normal archaeological conditions which usually result in direct
foreign trade materials, normally perishable or alterable, not surviving
the millennia 16). And when found such evidence generally occurs in
14) Most securely Sargonid seem to be the two seals found at Tell Asmar "in
an Akkadian house" (in a stratum dating from the Early Dynastic period) and
"private houses dating from the dynasty of Akkad" respectively (cf. H. Frankfort,
OIC 16 [i933], 5I f.;id., CS [i939], 305, and Stratified Cylinder Seals [95 5], n . 642;
Wheeler, The Indus Civilization a [i968], 17, nos. 5 and 6; Lamberg-Karlovsky,
art. cit. 224). Fairly certainly Sargonid is the seal found at Tepe Gawra in Stratum
VI comprising the late Early Dynastic and early Sargonid period (cf. E. A. Speiser,
Excavations at Tepe Gawra I [Philadelphia 1935], I63 f.; Wheeler, op. cit., i 17 no. 7).
Probably Sargonid are the two seals uncovered at Kish, whose archaeological
contexts are described by S. Langdon (JRAS 193i, 593 ff.) and E. Mackay(JRAS
1925, 697; cf. Langdon, 1.c.) respectively as "clearly not earlier than Sargon of
Agade" and "early Sumerian". Possibly Sargonid are three seals from Ur, Gadd's
nos. i, iy and 16 (art. cit., p. 193 f.); the first of these was found unstratified, but
was assigned by Gadd as pre-Sargonic on palaeographic grounds (cf. below, ex-
cursus, p. 156); the second was found in a grave very probably belonging "to the
Sargonic series" (ib., p. 201); the third came from the filling of a tomb-shaft as-
cribedbyL. Woolley (AJ 12 [1932], 364) and C. J. Gadd (L.c., p. 201o f.) to the second
dynasty of Ur, by Frankfort (CS, p. 306; OIC i6, p. 5ox10) to the Akkadian period,
and by B. Buchanan (JAOS 74 [I1954], 149) to early Ur III times (cf. ibid. n. 16:
"Notice that Woolley apparently gave up his original idea that the Indus Valley
piece might be on a floor of the tomb.").
I1) Both cases are ambiguous, however. Gadd's seal no. 6 was found "in a
vaulted tomb which is apparently that described by Woolley...as 'a Larsa tomb
which had been hacked down into' a wall dividing two apartments in the 'N.W.
annexe' added by Bur-Sin, king of Ur, to the funerary building of his father" (Gadd,
1.c., 195 f.). H. de Genouillac (RA 27 [1930], 177) reports that the Indus-looking
seal found by him at Tello came from 175 cm below the surface, "au niveau des
objects de 1'6poque de Gudda ou des restes de l'ige de Larsa".
16) Cf. H. E. W. Crawford, World Archaeology (I973), 232-241.
THE MELUUUA VILLAGE I 33
"port of trade" cities, often within the con

claves within a larger settlement 17); the chan
cultural material in the relatively limited exc
settlements with occupational strata spanning
are extremely scanty. In the case of cities ru
area under his influence and the very shor
reduce the chances of finding Indus trade r
sidering that only eight datable seals have be
much longer and more extensive reign of
makes it understandable that similar artifact
from Gudean occupational strata.
The end of LagaS and several other Sou
states as independent political units came w
multi-state empire under the Ur III dynasty, e
the efforts of Ur-Nammu (2 112-2095 B.C
continued flowing to Mesopotamia throug
borne out by references to Meluhhan raw
art in contemporary texts 18), but, curiously
temporary textual evidence showing that the
by direct trade-contact with the Mielhbans t
(as a geographical term and an ethnic appe
encountered in Ur III economic and administrative documents in
contexts suggesting that natives of Meluhha, or their descendants,
were still involved in economic and commercial activities in Meso-
potamia in the late Sumerian times. It is the purpose of this article
to collect and discuss the relevant documents, and thus to prepare
ground for answering the question of what was the exact r61e of these
people in the actual Indus-Mesopotamian interaction. Though most
of the texts concerned are in themselves of little interest, they will
17) Cf. N. Ozgiig, Old World Archaeology (ed. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky), 1972,

pp. 243-249. For "ports of trade" see K. Polanyi: Trade and Market in the Early
Empires (1957), 38 fif.
I8) Cf. Leemans, Trade, p. I6i.
134 s. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.
nevertheless be presented in full in order to make the nature of the

Meluhha references stand out as clearly as possible 19).
TEXTS
I. Receipt of barley (2062 B.C.)
L 7175. Unp., cf. Delaporte, ITT IV (iiz2) no. 7157. Photograph

pl. I (case only).
Obv. I 42.2.0 Se gur lugal Ur-saga, the scribe of the
2 ki nin-a-na-ta builders, has received in the
3 6-duru5 me-luhy-ta name of the builders 42,2
4 mu Sitim-e-ne- royal gur of barley from
5 ur-sa6-ga[dubl-sar itim Nin-anafrom the MeluhbBa vil
seal impression
6 Su ba-ti iti Se-gurux0 Month Seguru (XII), the
7 mu a-r i 3-kam in which Simurum was de
8 si-mu-ru-umki ba-hul for the third time.
Rev. seal impressions
Seallegend: ur-sas-ga Ur-saga,
dub-sar litim scribe of the builders,
dumu dug4-ga-dingir son of Duga-digir.
2. Account of grain delivery (2057 B.C.)
Previous edition: R. J. Lau, OBTR (1906) no. 242. Copy ibid. pl. 22.
Obv. I I 1927.2.4 7 1927,2,4 royal gur 7
2 sila Se gur lugal sila of barley,
3 e &-gud bull-stable grain,
4 gur ogur
5 e 6-APIN-l i of "tiller-house" grain,
6 gur ogur
7 Se numun-ta gur-ra
8 1.2.3 gur 1,2,3 gur
9 Se amar ba-til of calf-grain, all of it.
(one line blank)
0o Su+nigin 1929'.o.I Altogether 1929,0,1 royal gur
ii 7 sila Se gur lugal 7 sila of barley
19) In regard to the system of transliteration, note that kiri, = SAR, not GI .SAR
(SL). The measures of capacity are transliterated according to the system of E.
Sollberger, TCS i (1966), 12i.
THE MELUIIJA VILLAGE 13 J
I 12 sag nig-GA-ra-kam
making up the deposit capital
13 lag4-bi-ta Therefrom:
14 851.2.5 5 851,2,5 gur
15 sila gur 5 sila (for)
II x gurUDKA[ -ta] ..[..] of one gur [each],
2 I90.0.0 7 sila gur 190 gur 7 sila (for)
3 gur ge-ba-ta grain-rations of one gur each,
4 dub-bi 3-am details on 3 tablets, (given against)
5 dub ur-dam a tablet of Ur-dam
6 dumu ur-dnanre son of Ur-Nanle;
7 265.1.5 5 265,1,5 gur 5
8 gur (sila of barley),
9 dub-bi 3-am details on 3 tablets, (given against)
o10 dub ur-dlama a tablet of Ur-Lama
ii dumu me-luh-1a son of Melubhha;
12 84.3.5 gurt 84,3,5 gur,
tablet of Gudea
13 dub gii-d6-a
14 dumu ur-dba-ir son of Ur-Babu;
I 5 37.1.4 gur 5 37.1.4 gur
16 mu ba-a-al-la- for Ba'alla (PN?),
17 a-
I8 dub ur-dam tablet of Ur-dam
Rev. III I dumu ur-dnanaeson of Ur-Nante,

2 a-gti-a gi-g put on account.
(3 lines blank)
3 u xnigin [1548.4.4] Altogether[1548,4,4 gur]
4 [2 slla gur] [z sila of grain]:
5! dub [ur-dam] tablet of [Ur-dam];
altogether [265,1,5 gur]
6'- u x nigin [265.1.5]
7! [5 sila gur] [s sila of grain]:
8! dub [ur-dlama] tablet of [Ur-Lama]
9! dumu [me-luh-ha] son of [MeluBha];
Io! u x nigin [84.3.5 gur]
altogether [84,3,5 gur]:
11! dub [gii-d6-a] tablet of [Gudea].
(4 lines blank)
IV (6 lines blank)
I Su xnigin 1928.0.1 In all I928,0,1 royal gur
2 7 sila Se gur lugal 7 sila of barley
3 zi-ga expended.
(2 lines blank)
4 nig-ID-aka Accountant:
5 1'- a4ul-gi Lu-Sulgi,

6 sabra manager.
Grain of the temple of Ninmar.
87mu,e
is-sa 6 anin-rmarkil
6 Bf.SA-il- The year following the one in
9 dda-gan which the temple of Puzril-Dagan
(was built).
3. Inventory of barley deposits (2047 B.C.)
BM 17751. Copy L. W. King, CT 5 (1898) pl. 36 f.

Obv. I x 6o lal 2 le gur lugal 58 royal gur of barley (in)
2 a-lag, a-ba-al-la the field of Aballa.
3 343.3.3 gur 343,3,3 gur (in)
4 i-dub dul-ma-nu the granary of Du-Ma
5 325.1.0 gur 325,I gur (in)
6 i-dub daul-gi- the granary of Sulgi-
7 zi-kalam-ma zi-kalama.
8 19o0.0.0 gur 190 gur (in)
9 i-dub igi-g l- dlugal- the granary of Igigal-lug
Io URU X KARki Uruba;
II Se sumun old barley.
12 9.1.3 gur 9,1,3 gur (in)
13 i-dub ur-nig kta-dim
smith. the granary of
14 148.4.0 gur 148,4 gur (in)
15 i-dub &-duru, ur- the granary of the vi
16 An Ur-en.
17 I.o.5 e in-nuku6
18 gur (in)
19 i-dub &-duru5 dlug
20o -zi-da Lugal-azida.
21 563.4.3 563,4,3 gur
22 gur (in)
II I i-dub &-dur u5
2 luh-haki Meluha.
3 i866.I.2 gur 1866,1,2 gur (in)
4 i-dub Sir-gal the granary of Sargal.
5 860.4.0 gur 860,4 gur (in)
6 i-dub TE SU TUR the granary of Temen-~udumune (?).
7 NE
8 680.0.0 gur 680 gur of
9 e gin-gin ordinary (and)
io Se gibil new grain.
II I guru7 1445. I pile 1445,4,5 gur
12 4.5 gu r within (the territory of)
13 lag4 gir-suki Girsu.
14 130.1.0 gur I30,1I gur (in)
I5 i-dub igi-g l- the granary of Igigal-
16 dlugal-uRv X KARki Lugal-Uruba.
17 1153.3.0 gur 1153,3 gur (in)
18 i-dub 6 sipa-tur the granary of Esipatur.
19 260.2.1 5 sila gur 260,2,1 gur 5 sila (in)
20 i-dub dnin-gir-su- the granary of Ningirsu-
21 a-zi-da- danne azida-Nanie.
JESHO XX, 2 PLATE I
L 7157
L7''?
1. case obverse 2. case lower edge
3. case reverse 4. case left edge
Photographs: courtesy Istanb

5. case upper edge
Miizeleri.
PLATE II JESHO XX, 2
L 705
i. obverse 2. right edge 3. reverse
L 80oi
I. obverse 2. reverse
L I426
I. obverse 2. reverse
Photographs: courtesy
THE MELUI-JA VILLAGE 137
Rev. IlI x 1347.1.0 gur 1347,1 gur (in)

2 1-dub a-g dr gibil the granary of Agar-gibil.
3 Io052.4.0 gur io 2,4 gur (in)
4 1-dub a-pi4-sal,-mul- the granary of Apisal-mu
5 bi-eden-na bi-edena.
6 I guru, 283. i pile 283,2,1 gur
7 2.1 5 sila gur 5sila (of barley)
8 g
9 i id nina
1195.3.o ki_
gur g du along
1195,3 the Ninale-du canal.
gur (in)
io i-dub g 6 id tir- the granary on the Tir-sikil cana
II sikil
z12 180 lal I gur 179 gur (in)
13 i-dub sipa-tur the granary of Sipa-tur.
14 190.0.0 gur 190 gur (in)
15 i-dub igi- g il- d the granary of Igi
I6 lugal-URU X KARki Lugal-Uruba.
17 300.3.0 g ur 300,3 gur (in)
18lugal-nam-uru-na
19 1-dub a-pii-sal,- the granary
lugal-nam-uruna. of Api
20 69.0.0 gur 69 gur (in)
21 i-dub &-duru5 gibil the granary of
dnanle Nanle.
IV I 1204.2.4 5 sila gur 120
2 i-dub barag-si-ga the granary of Bara-siga.
3 2.0.0 gur 2 gur (in)
4 i-dub a-lag4 zi-dusku6 the granar
5 6.o.5 gur 56,o,5 gur (in)
6 i-dub lag4 a-lag4 zi- the granary within the Zidu-field;
7 dugku6
8 le sumun old grain.
9 1425.0.2 5 sila 1425,o,2 gur
Io gur (in)
ii i-dub dnin-lhur-s
12z 16i-kug-nun lu-kunun;
13 333.0.0 gur 333 gur of
14 le gin-gin ordinary (and)
i5 le gibil new grain.
16 i guru7 1473. (In all) i pile 1473,
17 2.4 gur 2,4 gur
18 lag4 gi-ab-baki within (the city of) Gu'aba.
(one line blank)
19 I-dub ha-la-a The granaries for distribution.
zo mu is-sa ki-malki The second year following
21 ba-hul the one in which Kimal
22 mu 6s-sa-bi was destroyed.
4. List of grain rations (2047 B.C.)

Copy: E. Chiera, STA (1922), no. 19. Catalogued ibid. p. 39.
Obv. I I 2.2.0 5 sila ge gur lugal 2,2 royal gur 5 sila of barley
2 ki ur-dba-6-ta afforded by Ur-Babu,
3 giri ur- dul-pa-t in charge of Ur-Sulpa'e.
4 Sag4-bi-ta Therefrom:
5 AGA igib-mah The crown(?) of the grand
6 0.0.5 zi-ur-g6-en-na o,o,5 (gur to) Zi-Ur-gu'en
7 ur- aba-6 SeS ur-nig Ur-Babu, brother of Ur-
8 sig,-a (garden) decorators (?).
9 o.o.5 (In all) o,o,5.
Io giskiri, en-ne The garden o
II o.I.o Id-aba- 6 0,1 (to) Lu-Babu,
I2 0.0.5 ku- 6-r 0,o, 5 (to) Kububu,
I3 [o.o.3] ab-ba-kal-la dumu o,o,3 (to) Abba-kala son of
14 kug- dnan e Ku-Nante,
I5 o.o.r41 ur-anin-gir-su 0,0,4 (to) U
I6 0.0.3 lugal-amar-kug o,o,3 (to) Lu
17 0.0.4 ur-dba-6 0,0,4 (to) Ur-Babu,
i8 [o.0.z2] 16dnin- ubur 0,0,2 (to) Lu-Niniubur,
19 e kal-la the brother of Kala,
20 0.0.4 16-adnin-gir-su 0,0,4 (to) Lu-
21 0.4.5 (In all) 0,4,5.
22 giSkirij ur-ma-ma The garden of Ur-Mama:
23 0.1.0 dingir-[?]-mu 0,I (to) Digirgu,
24 0.0.2 ur-DUB-hu-ru 0,0,2 (to) Ur-DUBtlurU.
25 0.1.3 (In all) 0,1,3.
26 giSkiri, gem&-dKA.DI The garde
II i o.o.3 ur-dig-[alim] 0,0,3 (to) Ur-Igalima,
2 0.0.2 ab-ba-lum 0,0,2 (to) Abba-lum,
3 o.o.1 5 sila a-kal-[la] o,o,i gur5 sila (to) Akala,
4 dumu ur-diul-gi son of Ur-Sulgi, (and)
5 ur-- 5o Ur-Eninnu.
6 o.I.o 5 sila (In all) o,i gur 5 sila.
7 giSkiri, al-la-[mu] The garden of Allagu:
8 ur-ba-g ir Ur-Bagara.
9 o.i.o lIi-dnanle o,I (to) Lu-Nanie,
o10 0.1.0 lu-~d.igigir dumu o,1 (to) Lu-gigirson of Ur-Lama
ur- dlama
I I 0.1.0 (In all) o, i.
1i2den-ki
gi1kirir is -suh gaba-ri- The fir g
13 giskiri gu-la ~ag4 uru The great garden inside the city.
14 giskiri6 gig-kin The kikandugarden.
I5 giskirij me-luh-ha The Melubba garden
d6 dnin-marki-ka of Ninmar.
THE MELU-JA VILLAGE 13 9
II 17 glSkiri6 dnin-marki The garden of Ninmar.

18 giSkiri kur x [ ] The garden of the land [...]
19 gi~kiri, ur-d[ ] The garden of Ur-[ ]:
20 ur- dul-[gi] Ur-Sul[gi],
21 dumu
22 ,ag4-ba-na-[gar]
lugal-[ ] son ofSabana[gar],
Lugal-[ ],
Rev. III r dutu-bar-ra Utu-bara.
2 giSkiri, ma-ni The garden of Mani.
3 giSkiri, d nin-ubur The garden of the god Nin
4 lugal-me-1im Lugal-melam;
5 ur-dub Ur-dub (and)
6 16- dnin-gir-su Lu-Ningirsu,
7 dumu lugal-me-lim-me son(s) of Lugal-melam;
8 0.0.4 ur-dig-alim 0,0,4 (to) Ur-Igalima.
9 0.0.4 (In all) 0,0,4.
10o ~Skiri, gi6 eden 4nin- The bl
gir-su girsu:
II o.0.1.4 A ur-&-dub o,I,4 (to) Ur-Eduba.
I2 gi kiri gi6 eden dba- r The black steppe-garden of Bab
13 0.0.3 nin-mu-silim-mu o,o,3 (to) Ningu-silimgu.
14 0.0.3 (In all) o,o,3.
I, gis kiri gettin gi-dba-i- The vineya
h6-gil
i6 giskirij erim-z6-z6 zi-na The ...-gar
17 giSkiri lugal-igi+ [ ] The garde
18giSkirij
19 g* kiri6 --lu-a
URU X KARki The gard
The garden
20 0.1.0 1h-dnin-gir-su o,i (to) ILu-Ningirsu,
21 0.0.4 lugal-[ ] bi [ ] 0,0,4 (to) Lugal-[ ].
22 0.I.4 (In all) 0,1,4.
23 giskirij dig-a[lim] The garden of the god Igalim.
24 gi kiri6 ir- g [al] The garden of Sargal.
IV I giskirij dnanl e si-mu- The garden of Nan~e of Simurum:
2 ur4-umki
3 ur- dig-alim Ur-Igalima.
4 16 -LAGAR XZA-me The...-men.
(9 lines blank)
5 Au x nigin 2.1.o 5 sila ie gur Altogether 2,1 gur 5 sila
6 e-ba dh-a-kud grain rations to duaku-gardeners.
7 0.0.2 ab-ba-mu 0.0.4 lal-NI o,0,2 (to) Abbagu, balance 0,0,4.
8 dul-ma-nu-ta From (the granary of) Du-Manu.
9 iti g ina-bar Month Ganabar (II),
1o mu is-sa ki-ma ki the second year following
xx ba-hul mu ds-sa-bi the one in which KimaS was de-
stroyed.

Previous edition: T. G. Pinches, Amherst (I908), no. 54, P. IO8 ff.
(with copy; photograph ibid. pl. III).
Obv. I 6.4.5 Se gur lugal 6,4,5 royal gur of barley (to)
2 giskiri6 d4ul-gi-i-kalam-ma the garden of Sulgi-a-kalama.
3 1.0.2 giskirij geltin gar- I,o,z (to) the vineyard of Gar~um.
Mumki
4 0.2.2 gijkiri6 anin-gir-su-i- 0,2,2 (to) the garden of Ninglirsu-
5 dah- d iul- gi adah-Sulgi.
6 0.3.2 gijkirij ur-dnin-gir- 0,3,2 (to) the garden of Ur-Ningirs
su-gu-la gula.
7 0.2.0 giSkiri6 ga-KASKAL oz, (t
8 0.4.0 gikirie dul-pa-6 0,4 (to
9 0.3.0 giSkiri, 16i-diig-ga o,3
o10 0.2.0 giskirij gu-la a-[ ] x 0
II 0.3.1 gi~kiri, uru-sag o,3,I
I2
13 0.3.0
0.4.3 giskiri6 gem- d-ul-pa-
gikiri, danin-gir-su 0
0,4
[1 Xl AR NE FX 1
14 0.I.2 gijkirij ti-ra-iis 0,1,2
15 0.1.2 1l-LAGAR X ZA O,I,
16 0.2.0 16i-na-kab-tum 0,2 (
17 SuXnigin 14.3.1 Se gur lugal In
i8 ugula gi-i--mu sandana Over
19 0.o.5 gi kiri, en-ne o,o,5
Rev. I 2.0.0 gi kiri6 ur-ma-ma 2 (to) the garden of Ur-Mama.
2 0.4.0 gif kiri, gem- dKA.DI 0,4 to the garden of Geme-IBtaran.
3 0.3.5 g"ikiri6 al-la-mu o,3,5 to the garden of Allagu.
4 0.1.4 gi1 kiri6 i-SU 5 gaba- 0,1,4 to the fir garden of Gabari-Enki.
ri-en-ki
5 0.3.5 gi~kiri, gu-la Sag4 uru o,3,5 to the great garden inside
city.
6 0.4.2 gi1Skiri ma-ni 0,4,2 to the garden of Mani.
7 o.3.o gi kiri, geitin gi- o,3 to the vineyard of Gu-Babu-
dba-i-hg-gil hegal.
8 0.3.2 gi1kiri6 dig-alim 0,3,z to the garden of t
9 1.1.0 16-na-kab'-tum-me I,I to the nagabtum-me
'o Sux nigin 8.0.5 Se gur lugal In all 8,0,5 royal gur of
II ugula ab-ba-mu sandana Overseer: Abba~u, chief
I2 u xnigin 22.4.0 Se gur lugal Altogether 22,4 royal g
13 ge-ba dti-a-kud-e-ne grain rations to duaku-gardeners,
14 i-dub me-luh-ha-ta from the granary of Meluhha,
I5 ki ur- dba- du mu ba-zi-ta provided by Ur-Babu son of BaZi.
x6 dub ur-gisgigir i ka-tar- Tablet of Ur-gigir and Katar-Babu,
dba-
THE MELUHjA VILLAGE 141
Rev. 7 dub-bi x - m there being (only) one tablet.

i8 iti ezen-dba-6-ta (Valid) from the month Ezen-Babu
19 iti mu-9u-du,- (IX) to the month Mu-udu (X),
20 iti 2-kam i.e. two months. The 2nd year
LE z21 mu Gs-sa ki-ma ki ba-lul following the destruction ofKimaS.
mu is-sa-a-bi
6. List of grain rations
Copy: G. A. Barton, HLC III (1914) no. 368 (pl. 139).

Obv. I I' [ ]-giS (break)
2' I2.0.3 gur I2,0,3 gur of
3' ge-ba a-bal grain rations to irrigators,
4' giri 1i-igi-lhul in charge of Lu-igibul.
5' 22.4.0 gur 22,4 gur (of grain)
6' me-luh- ha- ta from (the village of) Mel
7' 34.2.0 gur 34,2 gur
8' i-dub Sir-gal-ta from the grana
9' 9.1.0 gur 9,1 gur
1o' &-duru5 lugal-ti-ta from the vil
ii' 5.o.o0 da-da nu-kiri6-ta from the
dener,
Iz' I.z.x 6 Su-na nu-kiri6-ta 1,2,1 from the house of ~una the
gardener,
I3' zI.3.0 gur 6 ba-har-[ta] 21,3 gur from the house of Balar
II (break) (break)
x' r6.o.o01 x[ ]
2' 27.0.5 2 sila gur 27,0,5
3' 3.0.0 &-duru5 duru'-dam' 3
4' 312z.54 5 sila (in all) 312,5,4 gur 5 sila
5' ki ur-aba-P dumu ba-zi-ta provided by Ur-Babu son of Bazi.
6' 5.o.o a-r i i-kam 5 (gur) as the first delivery,
7' 2.0.0 a-r 2-kam 2 (gur) as the second delivery,
8' ki nig-li-rum kus-du8-ta provided by Ni'urum the skinner(?).
9' 9.2.0 i-dub nu-dus-ta 9,2 from the Nudu-granary,
io' 9.2.0 i-dub inim-dinanna-ta 9,2 from the granary of Inim-Inanna,
iI' ki 16-dnin-gir-su dumu provided by Lu-Ningirsu son of
1-kal-la-ta Ikalla.
Rev. III I 3.3.0 ki ur-dingir-r
2 SeS igi-zu-bar-ra-ta the b
3 i.o.o ki PA-6n dumu i (gu
4 ki!- iga-ta Kiaga.
5 4.3.4 &-si-ta 4,3,4 (gur) from Esi,
6 3.0.0 6 ur-dingir-ra-ta 3 from the house of Ur-digira;
7 6.o.o gur lal-NI su-ga-nin 6 gur, deficit of Suganin(?),
8 a-na dumu 16-gu-la Ana son of Lu-gula.
9 6.0.0 -duru6 lugal-ta 6 (gur) from the village of the
Rev. III 1o 4.1.3 kalam-sa, -ga-ta 4,1,3 from Kalam-saga,

ii girl su6-dug4-dug, in charge of Su-dudu.
12 2.3.5 5 sila a-r i 2,3,5 gur 5 sila, as the Ist delivery,
13 8.0.0 sukkal l-dus ix Su 30 ta (8 gur) from....
14 girl ur-dnin-giz-zi-da in charge of Ur-Ningizzida.
(remainder destroyed)
IV (8 lines blank)
I Suxnigin 384.2.5 I slla Altogether 384,2,5 gur I sila
2 e gur of barley,
3 e-ba a-bal dxa-a-<kud>
e-ne (blank space of 2 l
(remainder destroyed) (Date destroyed)
7. Debt-note (2046 B.C.)
BM 14594. Copy L. W. King, CT 3 (1898) pl. i7.

Obv. I 41i ma-na siki! (St) Ur-Lama son of Melutha has
2 si-i-tum 2 gli to recompense 41I pounds of
3 50 ma-na siki'!(f) wool, the balance of 2 talents
4 mu 6 KAX KAR-ii-da- o50 pounds of wool (loaned by him
S gan ba-dii in the year in which the temple
6 ur- d1ama dumu me- of Puzrii-Dagan was built
7 luh-ha (= 2058 B.C.).
Rev. 8 su-su-dam
9 dub ur-&-5o dumu Tablet of Ur-En

10 d u-d u Dudu, acting for Ur-Lama son
ii mu ur-dlama dumu of Meluhha.
iz me-luh-ha-S6
13 mu amar- den: zu The year in which Amar-Suena
14 lugal became king.

Copy: G. A. Reisner, TUT (1901I) no.
[Because of the length of the text (2
excerpt of it is given here.]
Rev. VI 20zo D o.I.O ur- dal-la erin C o,I
21 sabra-e- i the household of the temple-
22 dumu lugal-m +gur8-re manager, son of Lugal-mag
23 D o.i.o lugal-uru-da IM-e 0,I (gur to) Lugal-uruda, in/by
24 dumu a-ku, erin 6 dnanie son of Aku, serf of the Nan
25 nina ki-ta temple, from Nina.
z6 D o.i.o mi+gur8-re IM-e o,I to Magure, left in
tag4-a
THE MELUHJA VILLAGE 143
Rev. VI 27 dumu me-lulh-ha erin 6 son of Melu

dnange
28 g6 id-a-ta Nanie temple, from the delta.

29 girn lugal-16-sa8-sa, In charge of Lugal-lu-sasa.
30 D o.i.o ur-dnin-giz-zi-da o,I (to) Ur-Ningizzida, serf of
31 erin 6 na-ba-sa, nu-dib- the house of Nabasa, from....
ba-ta
32 dumu adnin-marki-1-sa, son of Ninmar-isa:
33 m -la h4 (DU.DOu)-me (all these) are skippers.
The men listed in this section belonged to the "personnel of t
mill" (gir-si-ga &-urs-ur5 gibil, VII 24), the mill in questio
less being part of a temple in Girsu. The rest of the text lists th
of the mill staff (scribes, gate-keepers, reed-weavers, car
maltsters, grinding-slab cutters, "chair-bearers", boat tow
in similar sections. Dated "month of Ezen-Lisi (IV), the ye
lowing the one in which Amar-Suen became king".
9. Receipt of grain (2030 B.C.)
L 705. Unp., cf. H. de Genouillac, ITT II (1910) 705. Phot

pl. II.
Obv. i I.I.o le gur Ur-ninsu has received
2 le nu-Ku from Ur-Itaran I,i gur
3 3.0.0 gur le ur5-ra of un...ed barley (and)
4 ki ur- dKA.DI- 3 gur of ground barley.
5 ta
6 ur-dnin-su
Rev. I lu ba-ti
2 1-dub me-luh-[h]a Granary of Meluh
3 iti le-il-la month Se-ila (I),
4 mu mi-gur8 mah the year in which the gran
5 ba-dim procession-ship was built.
Io. Account of grain delivery (2028 B.C.)

Previous edition: H. F. Lutz, UCP 9/2 (1928) no. 65 (t
and translation p. 129 f., copy p. 192).
I 2.0.0 le gur 2 gur of barley
2 a-lag, dinanna-ta from the field of the go
3 giri dingir-sukkal in charge of Digir-sukk
4 2.0.0 se-numun NUN SAR nu-6 2 (gur) of nongermi
5 I.o.o 6-ta le-me-ha ki I (gur) from the hous
6 0.3.0 me-lu h-ha-ta 0,3 (gur)from (the) Meluha (village),

7 0.2.0 a-KA-sahar-ta 0,2 (gur) from Akasahar,
8 o.z.o pistir-gaba-gfd-da- o,z (gur) from Tirgabagidda,
9 ta
0o 24.3.0 6 n
xx ta 2,1,3 (gur) 6 sila in the hands
i2 2.1.3 6 sila u palil of the principal,
13 Su+nigin 33.1.3 6 sila gur a total of 33,1,3 gur 6
14 ag4- bi- ta Therefrom:
15 25.I.0 Se kaS ninda gur 25,1 gur of barley (fo
bread,
16 1.1.0 ge-ba gem6 x,1 for grain rations of maidservants

17 s -dug, e-ba (and) regular grain offerings,
I8 0.3.0 nig-ezen-dab, 0,3 for festival expenditures;
19 Su+nigin 27.0.0 Se gur in all 27 gur of grain.
20 lal-NI 6.I.3 6 sila gur Balance: 6,1,3 gur 6 sila.
21 nig-ID-aka ur-aba-6r Accountant: Ur-Babu.
22 mudi-bi-den:zu Year: the one in which Ibbi-Suen
23 lugal became king.
I1. List of persons (undated)
L 8oi0 . Unp., cf. L. Delaporte, I

pl. II.
Obv. I [x] ur- adKA.DI Ur-Igtaran (and)
2 [x] lugal-giSgigir Lugal-gigir,
3 dub-sar-me scribes.
4 I GAL-1-li ugula ug-[bar] Rabi-ili, overs
5 x gigir-ta t6ig-du8 Gigirta, tailo
6 x ur- Ur-a,
Rev. 7 x ur-dralr Ur-da.
(2 lines blank)
8 Su+nigin 6 guruS Altogether 6 men,
9 Ir- dnan e-me servants of the goddess Nanie.
Io ugula me-luh-ha overseer: Melubba.
12. List of persons (undated)

L 1426. Unp., cf. F. Thureau-Dangin, ITT I (1910) 1426. Photograph
pl. II.
Obv. I x lugal-ab Lugal-ab
2 dumu da-da son of Dada;
3 ugula ur-6-dam overseer: Ur-Edam.
4 I ki-ku-li6 Kikkulu
5 dumu lugal-iti-da son of Lugal-itid
THE MELUUUA VILLAGE 145
6 ugula ur-nig overseer: Ur-nig.

7 I me-luh-ha Meluhha
8 dumu ur-an-na-di-a son of Ur-ana-dua;
9 ugula nam-rmalh-ni overseer: Nammahani.
Io [x] ur-[ ] Ur-[ ]
(last line of obverse [son of PN]
and edge destroyed)
Rev. I [ ] [overseer: PN2]
2 rlI [u]rf-irgigirl[dumu Ur-gigir son o
u]r-dni[n..]
3 rugulal ur-dKA.DI overseer: Ur-I~taran.
4 r11 ii-da dumu 8-kal-l[e] Uda son of Akalle;
5 ugula si-dii overseer: Sidu.
(2 lines blank)
6 nu-btn-[d]a 6 Inspector(s) of the house.
NOTES TO THE TEXTS
No. i
I "42,2 royal gur of barley": ca. 0o6 hectolitres = 454 bushels. The am
of gur and its subdivisions represented by the number string can be c
verted into modern measures according to the following scheme: I
2,5 hi = 5 bariga (thus according to Edzard rather than nigida [S
berger]); I bariga = 0ol = 6 bin; I bin = 8,5 1 = io sila; see F. Thur
Dangin, RA I8 (1921), I36 f.
3 -duru5 me-luh "the Meluhha village": cf. i-dub &-durus me-
ha ki "granary of the Meluhha village" 3 ii I, i-dub me-luh-ha "gr
of Meluhha" 5 rI4 and 9 rz, and me-luh-ha "(village of) Melutha"
and io:6 (referring to the same place as 3 ii i, cf. 6 i 8' with 3 ii 4'
place in question was a small settlement ("village", in the sense of
k~fer and Arab. kafr; cf. [a]-du-ru i.DURU5 a-du-ru-u, ka-ap-ru,
307 f., and see CAD s.vv. edurd and kapru) within the province of
(mod.Tell6; cf. 3 ii 13); as far as it is known, all its inhabitants had Me
potamian names (cf. Nin-ana 1:2, Ur-Lama 2 ii o10 etc. [if associated
the village], Ur-Babu son of Bazi 5 ri5 etc., Ur-Itaran 9:4), and in all con
the village appears to function as a unit of agricultural production, deli
grain as tax or selling it. Consequently, it does not differ from the num
other villages mentioned in the present texts save for its name, which asso
it with the country of Meluhha (sic; even though villages were often
after individuals, and Meluhha did function as a personal name [cf. 2 i
II:10o, 12:7], the spelling me-luh-ihaki in 3 ii i indicates that the
had a geographical connotation in the present instance). This str
points to a Sumerianized village originally founded by the Meluhh
a trade colony. Cf. 6-duru8 ga-e 8 "village of travelling merchants", C
STA io iv 8 and Sauren WMAH 176 iv 6, and note also 6-duru
mi-ganki, UET 3 1364:4, and 6-duru5 NIM-e-ne, ITT 4 7309
TUT i6o iii 20, interpreted by A. Falkenstein, AnOr 30 (1966), 26
spectively as "Dorf der Magan-Leute" and "Elamiterdorf" (cf., however,

Edzard's criticism of these renderings at the end of this article); Prof. Edzard
refers us further to the GN Lulubuna (RipG 2 112; also TLB III 142:Io,
143:7 ~ a-L.ki [D. O. Edzard]), "wohl eine Lulubier-Kolonie" (Falken-
stein, op. cit. 34); "dort ist ein PN ebenso ausgeschlossen wie das Land
der Lulubier" (Edzard, in a letter dated 21.9.1975).
No. 2
I 3ff On &-gud "stable for bulls" cf. Oppenheim, Bames (1948), 230; on APIN-1a
"ploughman", see ibid. 259, and cf. [APINu-r]u-li = la-gi-nu Lu IV 37
(MSL 12 39) and APIN-li = er-Ji "tilled field", li'i-APIN-li = e-re-iu "plough
man", h1 II 320 f (MSL 5 76). The suggested rendering of lines 4-7 a
sumes that grain from the said sources was normally included in the deposit
capital and therefore also in the account formula, though in the prese
case the actual amounts available were zero. Alternatively, these lines could
specify the amount given in line if, the word gur being conventionall
repeated (cf. I.o.5 Me in-nuku6 gur, 3 i I7 f.).
II I UD KA [ ]: unclear. Hardly for UD. KA. [BAR] "bronze".
ii dumu me-luh-ha "son of Meluhha": Meluhha is attested as a person
name in nos. x xi: I0 and I2:7, in the latter case together with a Sumerian
patronymic (me-luh-ha dumu ur-an-na-dii-a; cf. also mi+gur-e
dumu me-luh-ha 8 vi 26 f.), and this is the likeliest interpretation her
too. On the other hand, the pattern dumu GN was used in Sumerian (under
Akkadian influence?) also to indicate political or ethnic origin (cf. P
dumu EN.LLki-kam "PN, (who) is a citizen of Nippur", Sollberger TC
I no. 6: 3 f.), so a rendering like "inhabitant of Meluhha" or simply
"Meluhhan" appears also possible. In that case the designation would no
of course, refer to the country of Melulhha but to the village just discusse
(cf. 6 i 6' and io:6 where this village is called simply Me-luih-ha). Which
ever the correct interpretation, the use of Meluhha as a personal name and/
as a civic identifier implies that the person thus designated was in som
way (e.g. by skin color, lineage, tongue, or religion) associatable with the
people or country of Meluhha; and the fact that a man with a Sumeria
name could give his son the name Meluhha, and, conversely, that a ma
called Meluhha could have a son with a Sumerian name, is clear evidenc
of the Sumerianization of the namebearers.
i6 Thus according to Edzard; hardly an unusual spelling for mu ba(-a) 1-
(1)a- "for digging (a canal)".
III 2 On a-gi(PN)-a gi/gar "to charge to (PN)" see most recently M. Civil,
JNES 32 (x973), 58.
IV 7 6 dnin-marki "temple of Ninmar": here obviously referring to the temple
of the goddess in Girsu; cf. Falkenstein, AnOr 30 (1966), 29 and lo7, but
note that according to Gelb, StOr 46 (I975), 53, the goddess had only one
temple, situated in Gu'aba.
No. 3
I 2 a-Sag4 a-ba-al-la: for this field, as well as for the other fields and granaries
mentioned in the text, see Pettinato, Untersuchungen I/I (1967) s.vv.
THE MELUHIHIA VILLAGE 147
4 i-dub dul-ma-nu: cf. a-li du6-giA ma-nu, ibid. p

13 i-dub ur-nig ki-dim: cf. -duru5 ur-nig kii-
silversmith Ur-nig", CT 9 I8 i 19.
I7 le in-nuku6: an unidentified variety of barley;
inninnu.
II 7 TE lU TUR NE: unclear. Cf. Su-dumu (a profession), TUT i 4 viii 22z.

i i guru, "pile" was a unit of capacity, = 3600 gur.
13 1ag4 gir-suki: this rubric pertains to all the granaries enumerated in
I i-II io, as shown by the sum-total in II 11 f. Similarly g6 id ninaki-i du
(Rev. III 8) and lag, g6-ab-baki (IV 18).
IV 19 i-dub ha-la-a: cf. erin ha-la-a, NSGUI p. 98 and III ii9; for ha-la =
Zittu "(part) payment or delivery" see CAD Z 139 ff.
No. 4
I 6 zi-ur-gli-en-na: H. Limet, Anthroponymie (1968) lists 6 attestations of the
PN Ur-gu'ena but none of Zi-Ur-gu'ena or similar names.
8 sig7-a: a profession, meaning uncertain. Rendered tentatively "(garden)
decorator" on the ground of the context and the equation sig, = banu/
buntn "be beautiful/beautify" (CAD B 83 ff. sub bant A and B, lex. and bil.
sections). Cf. Oppenheim, Eames (1948), p. 46: "Sig, denotes an agricultural
activity which is very difficult to determine. The worker termed gurul
sig ,-a is often mentioned beside the di-a-kus-gardener as in Boson
364 rev4, Haverf. II 46: i-2; in Hussey 7 listing a large number of sig7-a-
workmen stationed in various gardens we read in line IV 32 1e-ba a-bal
dii-a-kus-d "barley-wages of water-carriers and dii-a-kus-gardeners",
and a similar text even has le-ba nu-giri, referring to sig,7-a workers...
However, no text mentions the kind of work the sig,-men actually were
doing; the objects of their activity were: gi "reed"..., 6 "grass"...,
19 lel(i-kula, a kind
kal-la: for the of
PN grass..,.
Kal-la seeorLimet,
Uz-t ...
op. cit. 97, z259 and 443; it is,
of course, also possible to read I e - ka l- la (cf. ibid. pp. io6, 20zoz, 259 and
329) and translate Lu-Ninlubur (and) SeI-kala.
I 24 u r-D u B- hu- r u: reading uncertain. Cf. ur-dub (III 5) and ur-dub-len-na,
ur-dub-lal, and ur-dub-lal-mah (Limet, op. cit., p. 539 f.).
II 2 ab-ba-lum: not listed by Limet, op. cit.; perhaps sandhi for abba-ilum, usually
written ab-ba-dirgir (Falkenstein, NSGU 5:4, Limet p. 365).
14 gil-kin: an unidentified kind of (fruit?) tree; cf. A. Salonen, Mibel 22zzo
("Birke") and R. C. Thompson, AJSL 53 235101 ("chestnut?"). H h III 6 ff.
(MISL 5 92) lists white, black, red, multi-coloured and green varieties of
the tree.
ysf "The Meluhha garden of Ninmar": following Falkenstein, AnOr 30 (1966)
2613, possibly a garden planted with fruit trees imported from Melulhha;
cf. g~ikiri6 i-suh5 gaba-ri-(d)en-ki (4 ii 12, 5 r4), gi4kiri6 geltin
gir-Iumki (5:3), etc., where the word inserted after gijkirij likewise
specifies the nature of the garden/orchard concerned. The present garden
probably provided fruit for the offering-table of the goddess Ninmar of
Girsu.
21 9ag4-ba-na-[gar] for the restoration cf. Limet, op. cit. 300 and 525.
III x x The sign a preceding the personal name is unaccountable; a scribal error ?
16 erim-z2-z2: unclear, perhaps a tree or a plant. The PN zi-na also occurs
in Oppenheim, Eames 209, KK 25:7.
IV 2 1 i-LAGAR X ZA: reading obscure; also in no. 5:15. We cannot suggest any
translation (cf. Pinches, Amherst [1908] Iio0: "perhaps "granary-keeper" ".
On the reverse (line 9) men of this class are probably included in the 1l i-
na-da-tum").
6 di-a-kud: a kind of gardener, cf. Deimel, 3L 230/89 and Oppenheim,
Eames 46 f.
No. 5
7 ga-KASKAL: uncertain whether to be read ga-e , "travelling merchant"
(cf. &-duru5 ga-eiS, note to 1:3) or ga-rag "leek" (cf. gi1kiri, gegtin,
i -suh5 etc. in the same text).
i6 Nagabtum (written both na-ga-ab-tum and na-kab-tum, the latter often misread
as na-da-tum) was a place often mentioned in Ur III texts, especially in ones
dealing with cattle. See Oppenheim, Eames 23 and Gelb, MAD 3 201.
r. 5 "the city": probably referring to Girsu.
No. 6
S 3' a-bal: "irrigator", lit. "the one who pours out water", = Akk. ndq mi
(cf. AHw 744b).
6' me-luh-ha: here certainly for i-dub (&-durus) me-luh-ha "granary
of (the village of) Meluhha". Note the subsequent reference to the granary
of Sargal, and cf. 3 i 21 f.: 563.4.3, gur, 1-dub &-duru5 me,-luh-hlaki,
1866.1.2 gur, i-dub ir-gal.
II 3' duru '-dam ': otherwise unknown. Copy probably not in order.
8' nig-6-rum: reading after Limet, op. cit. 522. The profession kug-du8 is
otherwise unknown to us.
III 4 ki! (copy DI)- ga: emendation justified by the fact that there are no other
examples of a PN DI- iga, whereas ki-iga is well attested (cf. Limet,
op. cit. 96, 265 and 443).
13 sukkal i-dus: uncertain whether to be interpreted as "Sukkal (= PN
the gate-keeper" or "the suk k al (= messenger, or the like) of the gate-
keepers". Rest unclear.
IV 3 For the emendation cf. a-bal dii-a-kud, Fish Catalogue 28:2, and ge-b
a-bal di-a-kud-ne, Hussey, HSS 4 7 iv 32.
No. 8
VI26 IM-e tag4-a: this expression also occurs in lines II 27.29, III 14.25, VI
4.o10.16.34 f.39, VII 5.9 of the same text, and in abbreviated form ibid.
II 8, VI 23 (IM-e) and III I6.40 (IM-e tag4); it is attached to persons of
various professions (6 boat towers, 4 skippers, 2 maltsters, I gate-keeper and
I reed-mat weaver) and of varying provenance (Girsu, Urim, Apisal,
THE MELUHHA VILLAGE 149
Nina, the village of shepherds, etc.); all of them

are said to be in the custody of another person.
pression is
abandon, unclear[cf.
divorce" (tags-a = 'passive'
NSGUIII s.v. andparticiple
CAD E 41o
of ni "(one)-self" or locative of im/tu,5 "clay/win
31 nu-dib-ba-ta: lit. "from (among) the not-tak
Cf. nu-dib-ba-ni "his not-taken", Sollberger
obscure).
No. 9
2 Se nu-KU: cf. Se nu-KU-me, UET3 1056 rxn. Meaning unclear.
No. Io0
4 NUN SAR: obscure.
5 -ta Se-me-haki: one would expect 6 ge-me-hak-ta "from the house
of Semeha"; the GN S. seems to occur only here (cf. Re'pG 2 179): is it
identical with later Samuha?
6 me-luh-ha-ta: cf. note to 6 i 6'.
7 a-KA-sahar: interpreted by Pettinato, Untersuchungen I/I p. 70 a
am) Wasser KAsahar". For KAsahar see Re'pG 2 93 ("etwas ndrdlic
Nippur an der Abzweigstelle des Iturungal vom Euphrat."
8 gistir-gaba-gid-da: "Feld am Wald gegeniiber dem Gidda-Feld
tinato, op. cit. 195 if.). For i-dub (a-Sag4) gist. cf. the other attes
of the toponym listed in RepG 2 195.
No. II
4 GAL-i-li: for the reading Rabi-ili cf. OAkk Ra-bi-DINGIR, Ra-bi-il and
GAL-DINGIR (Gelb, MAD 3 234); hardly = Ga-li-li, MAD I 197.
Io If the scribe Ur-IJtaran mentioned in line I is identical with the person
mentioned in Text 9:4, then the man called Meluhha was most likely
also associated with the Melu4hha village. Is this a mere coincidence? Note
that Meluhha and Ur-IBtaran also occur together in Text 12.
No. 12
3 ugula ur-&-dam: here, as in lines 6, 9, r3 and ry, it is impossible to decide

whether one should render "overseer of PN" or "overseer: PN". Edzard,
in a letter dated 9.9.1976, comments on the issue as follows: "Vielleicht -
falls nu-bin-da in der Unterschrift iiberhaupt Plural ist - Liste von nuban-
da's mit je einem denen unterstellten ugula. Oder aber Liste von Personen,
deren Charakteristikum wir nicht kennen unter Angabe des fiir sie jeweils
zustinden ugula; der nubanda in der Unterschrift wire dann eine Person,
die nicht namentlich genannt ist, weil sie bei dem fiir internen Gebrauch
bestimmten Dokument (kein Datum, kein sonstiges offizielles Merkmal)
als selbstverstandlich bekannt vorausgesetzt wurde."
150J S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA &C R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.
DIscussIoN
Textual references to Meluhha and Meluhhans prior

III dynasty were distinguished in relegating that coun
inhabitants to a non-Mesopotamian, foreign status. Goo
terials were exotic to Mesopotamia and came from a distan
Ships and shipowners either came from or went to Mel
terpreter was needed to translate the Melulhhan language.
cited texts, however, give us an entirely different view of the
As illustrated in Table i, the relative status of Meluhhan
activities differ from those referred to in earlier times. While
as a distinct ethnic group, their roles are intimately part
Ur III society.
A Meluhha village, for example, is referred to several
a period of 45 years (2062-2028 B.C.). That village, situ
territory of the old city-state of LagaS, appears to be fun
both a producer and supplier of barley for taxation and re
poses. While there is reason to believe that the village may
have been founded as a commercial settlement or a mercantile
enclave (see note to text 1:i 2), all references to it unanimously

that its role in Ur III society was little if any different from
Southern Mesopotamian villages of the day.
Personal references to "Meluhhans" indicate that most if not all
of them had Sumerian names. Thus, three persons directly indentif

as inhabitants of the Meluhha village and delivering barley to Sumeri
officials and individuals had purely Sumerian names, Ur-l1tara
Ur-Babu and Nin-ana (texts i, 5, 9). Two men, likewise with Sumeria
names, are referred to as "sons of Meluhha": Ur-'Lama dumu
Me-luh-ha (text 2 ii iof. and iii 8f.; 7:4f. and xof.), appearing
as recipient of large amounts of grain and wool, and Mi+ g u r -e
dumu Me-luh-ha (8 vi 26 f.), functioning as a skipper in a temple
mill. The designation "son of Meluhha" either refers to the man's
father or is a direct ethnic identification. Whichever is the case, the
use of the country name, Meluhha, directly or indirectly identifies
the two men's foreign background with that country. A final personal
TABLE i
Summary of the texts bearing on the presence of Melubbans in Ur III pe
Text Date Provenance Text type AMeluhha reference Specifications

i. L 7157 zo62 Tell6 receipt of nin-a-na from the vil- delivers io6 hi of bar
barley lage of me-lub-ta to Ur-saga
2. OBTR 242 o057 6-dnin-marki account of bar- ur-alama son
of Tell6 ley delivery me-lub-ha belonging to the temp
Ninmar for uns
3. BM 17751 2047 Tell6 *) inventory of granary of the village located in the provin
barley deposits of me-luh-ha" Girsu, contains 14
barley
4. STA 19 2047 Tella list of barley me-luh-ha garden of between kiri6-gi9-k
rations to the goddess dnin-marki kiris- dnin-m
garden workers
5. Amherst 54 2047 Tell6 list of barley granary of delivering 5
rations to me-luh-hha (village) as rations for ga
gardeners
6. HLC III 368 [2047] Tell6 list of barley <granary of> delivering 57 hl of bar
rations to me-luh-ba (village)
irrigators
7. BM 14594 2046 Tell6 *) debt-note ur-dlama son of me-luyh-ha acknowledges (through an
agent) a debt of woo
I2 years back in time
8. TUT 154 2045 Tell6 list of barley mai+gur8-re son of functions as skipper i
rations to mill me-lub-ha temple mill (transport
personnel grain?)
9. L 705 2030 Tell6 receipt of u
barley ary of me-lu
Io. UCP 9/2 65 2028 Tell6 *) account of bar- me-lub-ha-ta abbreviation for 6-du
ley consumption luh-ha-ta; deliverin
00oo 1 of barle
I1. L 8o05 Tell6 list of persons me-lubh-ha, overseer in charge of two scrib
a weaver and a tailo
12. L 1426 Tell6 list of persons me-lub-ha son of functioning as a temp
ur-an-na-d i-a "inspector"?
*) Inferred.
I J 12 S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.
reference is to an individual called "Melulhha, son of Ur-ana-dua"

(text 12:7 f., cf. also i i: o). In this case, Meluihha is unequivocally
used as a personal name. The man in question may have in fact been
named after his native country as many past immigrants have. Since
the father, Ur-ana-dua, has a Sumerian name, it is probable that the
man himself was two or more generations removed from immigration
into Mesopotamia.
While evidence is undeniably extremely slim, the above texts do
indicate that at least certain Meluhhans had undergone a process of
acculturation into Mesopotamian society by Ur III times. Three
hundred years after the earliest textually documented contact between
Meluhha and Mesopotamia, the references to a distinctly foreign
commercial people have been replaced by an ethnic component of
Ur III society. It is relatively easy to picture that in the course of a
more or less intensive but nevertheless prolonged trade contact,
in which the Meluhhans were the active counterpart, they would have
established commercial enclaves in the sea and river ports of southern
Mesopotamia. Documentation for such enclaves prior to the Ur III
dynasty is not available. The Ur III texts, on the other hand, do estab-
lish the presence of a distinctive village, ethnically classified by the
name Meluhha, as having been an integral part of the economic struc-
ture of the province of Girsu (Tello). Six individuals, five with Su-
merian names, and another with the name Meluhha, but with a Su-
merian named father, indicate Meluhhan acculturation into Sumerian
society on a personal as well as a politico-economic level. The presence
of a Meluhhan garden dedicated to a Sumerian goddess (text 4), and
the paying of religious taxes to that goddess' temple show a further
degree of amalgamation into that society. Much of this amalga-
mation could be explained by the fact that foreign merchants, partic-
ularly far from home, have been known to pay homage to the deities
and were subject to taxation in the countries where they operated.
This was usually considered essential for good relations in the host
country. In addition, such accultural participation was often facilitated
by the intermarriage of foreigners with the host country's women.
THE MELUUIA VILLAGE 153
These factors could indeed explain most, if not

evidence gathered above 20). However, the tone of
impression that the Ur III Meluhhans had very
their homeland.
There are no accounts of Meluhhan sea-traders

distance commerce with their native country. T
to a "Meluhhan" skipper we do have from this p
in this respect, since the man concerned evidently
in carrying domestic cargo of grain over the M
network. Nevertheless, the man's occupation, et
and name (mi-gur, = "Schiff mit hohen Steven,
schiff" 21)), in personal names mostly-but not nece
to the "Mondschiff" 22) strongly suggest that h
of a Meluhhan practicing overseas trade.
The role of the Indus civilization in Meluhh
interrelations, in light of recent research, appears to
pattern when integrated with the hypothesis of Me
and relative isolation in Ur III times. If Meluhha ca
with the Indus, then there are a number of fascina
form of historical processes which may have ta
that civilization, the Persian Gulf and Mesopotam
archaeological evidence, largely in the form of s
Indus-Mesopotamian contacts were most intense du
period. Mesopotamian texts support this equatio
that the succeeding Gudean period continued se
with Meluhha. However, Ur III texts show that trad
with Meluhha, earlier transported by ships from th
somewhat in quantity, and were brought, not by M
20) For similar acculturation processes observed elsewhere c

"Assimilation in America: Theory and Reality", in R. M. Abra
(ed.), The Shaping of Twentieth Century America (Boston 1965
et al., The Cultural Integration of Immigrants (Paris 1959).
z21) A. Salonen, StOr 8:4 (4939), i2 fa
22) Cf. Salonen, op. cit., 4 f., I5 ft., and Limet, Anthroponym
by Tilmun merchant intermediaries 23). At the same time, Indus-

related artifacts from Mesopotamia become fewer and ever more
questionable in provenance.
An interesting possible connection to the indications of Meluhhan
isolation in southern Mesopotamia appears in recent chronological
research on the Indus civilization. That research, utilizing new radio-
carbon calibrations, indicates that the Ur III dynasty in Mesopotamia
probably coincides with the end of urban systems in the Indus valley 24).
If this was indeed the case, then it would be sensible to assume that
Indus instigated trade would also cease with the end of the supporting
Harappan urban society. The possibility that this happened is partially
supported by the documented emergence of the Tilmun traders as a
dominant commercial force in international sea-trade. While trade
with Meluhha does not appear to have ceased entirely, the rol
Meluhhan ships and merchants in the transferral of trade goods app
to have ceased. It is possible that, granting that Meluhha was
Indus, some limited trade may have been carried on, subsequen
the demise of Indus urban systems, with numerous late-urban settlemen
known to have existed in Kutch and Gujarat of present-day wes
India.
In another previous paper, two of the present authors have presen

new data and a hypothesis concerning the history of Indus and Ind
related seals in the Near East 25). Briefly summarized, that hypoth
sis sees the initial appearance of "classic" or native origin In
seals in the Near East by at least the Akkadian period. Continu
contact with the Barbar culture of the Persian Gulf and that of Meso-
potamia resulted, over time, in the development of Indus-related

seals with both indigenous and foreign attributes. For instance, seals
on Bahrain and Failaka in the Persian Gulf have a native Barbar cul-
ture form, round, varying mixes of Indus and Barbar motifs, and
23) Cf. Oppenheim,JAOS 74 (1954), 6 ff. and Leemans, Trade (960o), 33 ftf.
24) Brunswig, Man 8 (i973), 543-5 54; id., "Radiocarbon Dating and the Indus
Civilization", East and West 25 (I975), I 11-145.
25) Cf. introduction, note 13.
THE MELUUUA VILLAGE 1 5 5
Indus script. A similar process has been postulated for M

where Indus motifs, and in one case, script, appear on cyl
a form native to Mesopotamia. In short, the hypothesis ad
changes in time of Indus-related seals in the Near Eas
in a similar acculturation process indicated by the Ur III t
in this article. If further documentation of this process c
in future archaeological and textual data, then perhap
able to more reliably reconstruct historical processes of cu
action between two of the world's oldest civilizations.
EXCURSUS ON THE INDUS SEAL-LEGENDS FROM MESOPOTAMIA
Given the possibility that Melulhha is to be equated with the Indus

civilization, the discovery of foreign words expressly designated as
Meluhhan in third millennium cuneiform documents would under-
standably be of considerable significance to the decipherment of the
Indus script, in that they might definitely settle the much disputed
question of the linguistic affinity of the Harappans 26). Unfortunately
no such words, excepting of course the name Meluhha itself 27), have
yet turned up. The texts presented in this paper do, it is true, mention
by name several persons identified as descendants of Meluhhans or
otherwise associated with the country of Meluhha, but these names
are exclusively Sumerian and therefore of no relevance to the study
of the Harappan language as such 28).
Nevertheless, the evidence of these names can be utilized in the
study of the inscriptions on Indus-related seals from Mesopotamia
and may ultimately prove useful to the decipherment of the Indus
script in general. A partial acculturation of Harappan merchants
operating in the Near East has already previously been independently
suggested with reference to their adaptation of such local conventions
as the (Mesopotamian) cylinder and the (Persian Gulf) round seal
26) How open the question still is can be seen from T. Burrow's review of
J. V. Kinnier Wilson's Indo-Sumerian (Oxford 1974) in Antiquity 49 (x975).
27) Cf. introduction, n. 2.
28) Cf. pp. I5o-Ix2 and 158-159 (with n. 46)
156 s. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.
form 9). Besides their form, students of these seals have usually
paid attention only to their iconographic motifs and a single (obscure)
cuneiform inscription 30), leaving aside the numerous legends in the
Indus script. The only exception is G. R. Hunter, who more than
forty years ago made the following important observation:
"The four examples of round seals found in Mohenjo-daro show
well-supported sequences, whereas the three from Mesopotamia show
sequences of signs not paralleled elsewhere in the Indus script. But
the ordinary square seals found in Mesopotamia show the normal
Mohenjo-daro sequences. In other words, the square seals are in the
Indus language, and were probably imported in the course of the trade;
while the circular seals, though in the Indus scrzipt, are in a different language,
and were probably manufactured in Mesopotamia for a Sumerian- or
Semitic-speaking person of Indus descent." 31)
Since the days of Hunter, the number of known Indus inscriptions
has considerably increased, but the new finds have in no way shattered
his conclusions. On the contrary, a careful re-examination of the Near
Eastern Indus seals by means of a concordance of all Indus inscriptions
published to date 32) makes the difference between seals from India
29) Cf. C. J. Gadd, Proceedings of the British Academy 18 (1932), 203 f.; G. Bibby,
Antiquity 32 (195 8), 243-246 (with comments of D. H. Gordon and M. Wheeler).
30) Gadd, art. cit., i93 f. (no. i). The seal is in good state of preservation, but
its 3-sign inscription is sketchily carved and not legible with full certainty. Gadd's
SAK-KU-~I is the likeliest alternative, but other readings (KA for SAG, MA for KU,
BA for ~I) are not excluded. Yet even allowing the possibility of indistinct carving,
the inscription remains obscure, and Gadd may well be right in stating that "it
does not, at least, seem to be any Sumerian or Akkadian name". If so, it need hardly
be pointed out that the uncertainties involved in the identification of the signs
in question and their polyphony make it impossible to establish the correct reading
of the name(?), unless more examples of it (in variant spelling) become available
or the underlying language is reliably identified. Moreover, it is not excluded that
an unusual or carelessly carved Sumerian name is in question, e.g. ka/inim-dab5-ba
"(his) mouth/speech is 'seized' " (referring to one unable to speak [properly], cf.
CAD S zia and such names as inim-gi-na "(his) speech is truthful", inim-sa6-gal
sags-a "(his) speech is good", Limet, op. cit., 435 f.), inim-ma-ni! "his word"
(ibid.) or perhaps even sag-ma-BA (cf. sag-ma ibid. 524).
31) JRAS 1932, 469. The italics are ours.
32) S. Koskenniemi, A. Parpola and S. Parpola, Materials for the Study of the Indus
Script I (ASSF B i85, Helsinki 1973).
THE MELUIJA VILLAGE 15 7
and Mesopotamia stand out even more markedly than b

examples serve to illustrate the point 33). One of the circu
tamian seals has a five-sign Indus inscription reading U
The signs in question belong among the most common
Indus script, their individual frequencies being as follow
= 1o7, o^ = 125, A = 29. Yet none of the sign-com
occurring in this inscription are attested elsewhere, a m
fact considering that the occurrences of U alone const
o10 percent of the sign total of all Indus inscriptions. By
square seal found at Kish 35) can be matched with num
from the Indus valley both in regard to its iconography an
inscription. The picture in question (a "unicorn" standin
of a "manger") is the most common motif on native Indian
and the inscription itself (U E 9) recurs in identical fo
seals found at Mohenjodaro and 20 times as a compone
(longer) inscriptions 37).
In view of the evidence presented in this paper, the m
explanation for the strange sign-sequences of the Mes
Indus seals would seem to be that these seals belonged to
of Harappan origin living in Mesopotamia and having, a
a process of cultural integration, or for other, subtler, reas
Mesopotamian names but still maintaining connections
home country. Such people could have functioned as co
agents monopolizing the Indus-Mesopotamian trade, e.g
warding Harappan merchandise to its Mesopotamian dest
helping to export MesQpotamian articles (textiles, etc.)
In such a position, it is conceivable that they would ha
seals whose impressions (stating their names and profes
could be read not only in the Indus Valley (the round se
in Mesopotamia (the Indus-related seal with the cuneifo
33) The complete analysis will be published elsewhere.
34) Gadd, art. cit. (1932), p. 202 (no. 17).
35) E. Mackay,JRAS 1925, 697 f.
36) See Koskenniemi et al., op. cit., p. xx (971 examples).
37) See ibid., p. 432 ff. The middlemost sign has several allograph
tion). One would expect the appearance of such people especially

at times when the Indus-Mesopotamian contact was being most
intensive, and one could hypothesize that at first the agents were
purely Meluhhan, making use of interpreters and their native seals,
and only later were replaced by ones with Mesopotamian names.
Such a hypothesis actually tallies with the chronological distribution
of the datable Indus-related seals, as far as this can be ascertained 38).
On the other hand, since non-Harappan sign sequences already occur
in seals that can with a fair degree of certainty be dated to the Sargonic
period 39), the process of cultural assimilation may have begun con-
siderably earlier than the Ur III texts treated by us directly imply 40).
The above conclusions entail some important corollaries. One is
the total dissimilarity of the native Harappan and the Mesopotamian
language used on the Near Eastern seals, which makes Sumerian an
extremely unlikely candidate for the language of the Indus civili-
zation 41). This is, to be sure, only what can be reasonably expected
in view of the archaeological evidence, which clearly documents
the independent development of the Mesopotamian-Elamite and
Turkmenian-Indus Valley cultuial spheres until about the latter half
of the fourth millennium B.C. when an interaction of a commercial
nature develops between these two already fully differentiated regions 42).
The Turkmenian derivation of the 'Early Indus' cultures from which
the Indus civilization developed, as well as the relationship of the latter
with the later Indian cultures rather strongly suggest a Dravidian
38) Cf. above p. 132, notes I4 and i5.

39) E.g. Gadd, art. cit., (1932), zoi f. (no. 16), reading 0 T. No sign
combination of this inscription occurs elsewhere, in spite of the high frequencies
of the individual signs.
40) Note, however, that the role of the Meluhha village, especially its complete
integration into the economic structure of Ur III society, implies that many genera
tions had passed since its (hypothetical) foundation as Meluhhan trade colony.
41) The old "Indo-Sumerian" theory has been revived in 1974 by J. V. Kinnier
Wilson; cf. above, note 26. Cf. also A. Parpola, "Recent Developments in the
Study of the Indus Script", to appear in Sind Through the Centuries (Karachi).
42) Cf. G. F. Dales in N. Hammond (ed.), South Asian Archaeology (London
1973), 157-169.
THE MELUHJHA VILLAGE I J 9
affinity of the Harappan language 43). The same result is reac

through the study of the toponyms of the area covered by the In
civilization 44), as well as by the interpretation of the Indus sc
itself 45).
In the second place, these hybrid inscriptions of the Near Eastern
Indus seals constitute an important potential clue and test to the
decipherment of the Indus script. After a sufficient amount of Indus
signs has been confidently interpreted, it should become possible,
by the application of the phonetic values thus established, to read
Mesopotamian names on these seals 46).
43) Cf. A. Parpola in J. E. van Lohuizen-de Leeuw and J. M. M. Ubaghs (ed.),

South Asian Archaeology - y973 (Leiden 1974), 90-I00oo.
44) See A. Parpola in Felicitation Volume in Honour of Father X. S. Thani Nayagam
(in press).
45) Cf. now A. Parpola, JRAS 1975: 2, 178-209; in B. B. Lal and S. P. Gupta
(ed.), Fifty Years of Harappan Studies (= Fs M. Wheeler, New Delhi 1977?); and
StOr 45 (1976), I25-x6o.
46) A tentative analysis of the circular seal referred to on p. 157 will illustrate the
point. Only two of the four signs occurring in it can be read with reasonable cer-
tainty: ' or(u) "i" (Burrow - Emeneau, Dravidian Etymological Dictionary [ 96 i],
no. 834a)
despite and
its high 0 = ko.entirely
frequency, (cf. ibid. no.it1788).
open, but The
is mostly interpretation
believed of
to represent either the sign 1Q is,
the oblique (adnominal) case morpheme reconstructed as *(V)t(V) (cf. N. V. Gurov
in Proto-Indica: 1972 (i972), I 131, 134 f.), or the genitive case morpheme *atu
or *.the
from (cf.Near
above,
East an. 45); /4 remains
conspicuously unexplained.
high frequency Theto sign'
in relation = or(u)
the situation has in seals
in the Indus Valley, and it could thus perhaps stand for Sumerian ur "man", the
most frequently occurring initial component of Sumerian proper names. As the
Indus script runs from right to left, U should then represent the final part
of the name concerned, while ^ A6 could stand for a profession or title preceding
the name, as usual in Dravidian. Of the 7 u r-names showing a final element consisting
ofareduplicated syllable, listed by Limet, Anthroponymie 66 ff. (ur-ba-ba, ur-da-da,
ur-du-du, ur-gi4-gi4, ur-KA-KA, ur-ma-ma and ur-me-me), only two (ur-
da-da and ur-du-du) can be reconciled with the proposed interpretation of the
sign J; this sign could accordingly be tentatively assigned the phonetic value
ta or tu. At the beginning of the inscription, one would of course most naturally
expect a Harappan title or profession. Since, however, the sign combination in
question does not occur in seals found in the Indus Valley, it seems possible that
the signs render a Sumerian title used as a professional identifier in want of a Harap-
pan one (or equivalent). On these premises, the seal might have belonged to Ur-
du-du sukkal mentioned in Lutz, UCP 9/2 no. 42, and we might have a clue to
the reading of the undeciphered sign A. But let us repeat that all this is very hypo-
thetical for the time being and meant only as an illustration of the possibilities at
hand.
Ib6o S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.
APPENDIX: A SARGONIC MELUHHA-NAME
Having already submitted the manuscript to press, the authors

noticed that they had overlooked a recently published text significantly
bearing upon the matters discussed in this article. The text dates from
the Sargonic period and hence does not belong to the corpus of Ur
III texts edited above, but nevertheless definitely deserves to be in-
cluded here as a separate appendix with appropriate comments"4).
BM 86314 = E. Sollberger, CT 5o (I972) no. 76. Edited here for the
first time.
Obv. I Io gin kug Lu-Sungida,

2 kug z6 gul-la-kam a man of Meluha,
3 ur-ur ni-is-ku has remitted
4 dumu amar-1-KU to Urur son of
5 16-sin-zi-da Amar-luKu, a nisqu servant,
6 16 me-luh-ha-ke, Io shekels of silver
7 l-na-ab-ss-si as payment for a broken tooth.
Rev. 8 lugal-iti-da Lugal-itida
9 ma kim (was) the bailiff;
10 ugula EN--lu overseer: Beli-ilu.
NOTES
2 The reading of the second sign as 2z6 "tooth", and the interpretation of the
whole line, seems certain in view of Codex Hammurapi, ? 201: "If a person
strikes out a tooth of a dependent, he will pay ? pounds of silver." The amount
of silver prescribed in the code is twice the sum given in the present text, but it
must be noted that the latter predates the former by several centuries, and only
deals with a broken tooth. For gul = hepz "to break" see CAD HI v7I and 3L
II: 3 no. 429, 5-
3 ni-is-ku: a kind of (marked) slave or servant, see MAD 3 206.
4 Sic with Sollberger (private communication) rather than amar 16- dab,5 (cf.
above, fn. 8). Both ways, the PN seems to be hapax.
5 16-s6in-zi-da: a hapax. The DN sdn-zi (lit. "just buffalo-cow") constituting
the latter part of the name is likewise virtually unknown 48). Prof. Sollberger
refers us to the Ur III en-name en-nin-s6n-zi, but this is hardly relevant as
the name may well be rendered "Ninsun is just", with a well-known deity.
47) In the interpretation of this document, we have profited from the expertise
of Professor E. Sollberger, who graciously commented upon the draft of this
appendix. The responsibility for the views expressed is naturally entirely ours.
48) It is otherwise known only from Tablet III of the god list An = Anum,
where it occurs among sons of the moon god, cf. RA 20zo, IoI iv 14 (ds6in-zi). A
duplicate gives the name as dsin-si (CT 24, 30 iv 14).
THE MELUIHHA VILLAGE IGI
DISCUSSION
The text under study is interesting in several res

shall only deal with the "man of Melulhha" ment
cally with his name. As given in the text, it is indu
meaning "man of the just buffalo-cow", and in th
smoothly with the Ur Ill names discussed above,
there are two details which set the present name ap
material. First, it has to be noted that while th
vaguely stated to belong to "sons" of Meluhha (whic
father as well as to a place of origin), the man co
pressly defined as a native (li = "man") of Meluh
this seems to us particularly significant, while t
found in the Ur III texts are without an exception w
Sumerian names, the present early name, borne
designated as a Melullhan, is a hapax legomenon; and
that, it is a theophoric name composed with a name
otherwise unknown in Mesopotamia49). If one correlates
textual and archaeological evidence presented elsewh
showing that the earliest documented direct contac
Indus and Mesopotamia dates from the Sargonic per
seems almost inevitable that we are here dealing wi
generation Meluhhan immigrant bearing a name directly
native language into Sumerian in order to make him mo
norms of the foreign community he was living in (w
time forcing him to abandon the values of his n
Such translated names are a commonplace in mu
dominated by one "high" language; in the prese
beginning of the acculturation process delineated ab
would seem not only natural but also socially obli
Moreover, there is the added fact that while the n
though formally Sumerian, does not really make
potamian cultural sphere (whose mythology doe
49) Note that the name lacks the determinative d, as usu
Sumerian (though occasionally also Sumerian) divine names
I62 S. PARPOLA, A. PARPOLA & R. H. BRUNSWIG JR.
buffalo-cow"), it does make sense if one turns to the early Indian

pantheon. In Rgveda I, 164, 415?), gauri "she-buffalo" is the symbol
of the dark, primeval waters of creation, the chaos (buffalo being a
dark animal that loves water). Impersonating the goddess Vic "speech",
the buffalo cow according to this verse lows and thereby creates the
world: she gives birth to the first concrete manifestation, the eternal
(holy) syllable, Brahma, Agni, Prajipati, the "first-born of all". In
i, I64, 37, Agni is associated with Vic and called "the first-born of
rta"s). R.ta is the

"righteousness", "cosmic
a concept law", associated
intimately the earlywith
Vedic predecessor
'King' Varuna, a of dharma
chthonic god who is "the lord (husband) of the (primeval) waters",
and the just punisher of the sinners. Rta/dharma and Varuna are partly
of Aryan origin (being in this tradition associated with the oath) and
partly continue earlier non-Aryan traditions of India: in the last
mentioned capacity Varutna, like the classical Hindu god Yama, re-
presents in all likelihood the early Dravidian god of death, Kdla "the
Black one" or "Time" (the night aspect of the sun), riding (like Yama)
the buffalo. In the Vedic new year ritual and related royal rites (mahi-
vrata, purusamedha, advamedha, agnicayana), Varuna is the "dying
god", being represented by the male partner (usually identical with
the main victim of the sacrifice, a man, a horse, or a tortoise, each of
these impersonating the sacrificer, who as a rule is a king) in the sexual
union from which the new ruler of the universe is (re)born. The female
partner in these fertility rituals is either a sacred prostitute symbolizing
the fecundated earth goddess, or the king's first consort, called mahisi
"buffalo cow". These concepts and rituals belong to the earliest stratum
o50) The first and tenth book of the Rgveda, the most ancient Indian text col-
lection, can with linguistic and redactional criteria be proved to be considerably
younger than the main bulk of the hymns (cf. e.g. Renou, Vedic India, 1957, 3 f.).
The very different content of these later hymns (cf. ib., 6 f). can be best explained
to be due to the substratum influence of the previous inhabitants of India, while
the old core remains true to the Indo-Iranian heritage (with the cult of soma =
Avestan haoma, etc.) brought into India by the Aryans from outside.
Si) For a more detailed discussion and exegesis of the verses mentioned and
other references, see especially Agrawala, "Gauri", AOS 47 (1962), 1-7; cf. also
van Buitenen, "Aksara",JAOS 79 (1959), 176 ff.
THE MELUIJJJA VILLAGE 163
that can be reached by an analysis of the Indian textual sources: the

represent the religion of the Disas or Vrityas or Mlecchas, who
cupied
be North
seen from RSIndia
7, 21, before the arrival
5, the latter ofabhorred
originally the .Rgvedic Aryans. As can
the phallic
cult they encountered in India52). Here we can limit ourselves to
observing that in Satapatha Brahmana 3, 2, i, 18 ff., the very passage
in which the Sanskrit word mleccha ("non-Vedic stranger speaking in-
distinctly or corruptly") connected with Sumerian Meluhha is first
attested, the goddess Vac is expressly said to have originally belonged
to the mlecchas 53). The late Rgvedic hymn Io, 125 addressed to Vgc
proves that she was in the earliest times conceived as the all-mighty
Goddess par excellence, who also punished the impious. Since vritya
rites with orgiastic cult were in Epic times practised in the upper
Indus valley54), it seems obvious that the goddess Gauri "buffalo-cow",
who in classical Hindu mythology is Siva's wife, is identical with the
Goddess of the Tantric religion into which Buddhism was transformed
in these very regions. Another centre of Tantrism is Bengal, where
the traditions of ancient Magadha-the country of the mlecchas of
the above quoted SB reference-are continued. The Goddess is here
known primarily as Kali "the Black one", and the principal offering
to her is the male buffalo (mahisa), according to the myth the demon
whom the Goddess killed, and clearly representing her husband ($iva-
Sava). Already in the iconography of the Indus civilization, we have
scenes of buffalo being speared55), as well as of a female in a cultic
headdress cohabiting with a bull56), a situation comparable to the
union of the sacrificial horse and the queen in advamedha.
5 z) For Varuna, cf. notably J. J. Meyer, Trilogie altindischer Michte und Feste der
Vegetation (i937), part III, and for a basic orientation about the rituals mentioned
e.g. A. Hillebrandt, Rituallitteratur (1897). For methods of reconstructing the
pre-Vedic religion and some of its chief characteristics, cf. A. Parpola's forth-
coming papers in Temenos I2 (1977) and in Agni, ed. Frits Staal.
53) Cf. A. and S. Parpola, StOr46 (1975), 212.
54) Cf. J. W. Hauer, Der Vrdtya I (1927), 233 ff.
55) Cf. E. Mackay, Further excavations at Mohenjo-daro (1938) II, pl. LXXXVIII,
279 & XCII, 1 i.
56) Cf. E. Mackay, AOS 20zo (1943), pl. LI, 13.
It will undoubtedly still take time before the Harappan inheritance

in the early strata of the Indian religions is unanimously recognized.
The fact remains, however, that in very ancient Indian mythology and
ritual, the buffalo cow does play a dominant role. The interpretation
suggested here for the name 16i-sin-zi-da57) thus not only is fully
consistent with the picture obtained in the earlier part of this paper,
but also provides a satisfactory, if not the only satisfactory explanation
for a text abounding in unusual details. The issue will, of course, have
to wait for future discoveries before it can be definitely settled. Until
then, the present text can be considered as lending an additional,
previously unknown support to the identification of Meluhha with the
Indus civilization.
CRITICISM
The following comments of D. O. Edzard (on the draft version of the p

paper) serve to underline the tentative nature of the interpretations advanced
Es scheint mir, dass Sie zu sicher und unbekiimmert davon ausgehen, dass
"Meluhha" Benannte auch Zeichen fiir Akkulturation sei. Man kann m.E. weder
das eine noch das andere beweisen. Vielleicht lohnt aber ein Hinweis auf par
Erscheinungen. Ich denke etwa an die vielen "Tiirken": ein Ort Tiirkenfeld
eine Tiirkenstrasse in Miinchen, viele Familiennamen Tiirck, die Blume Tiir
bund. Das geht zwar alles auf die Erinnerung an die Tiirken zuriick, hat aber ni
mit Niederlassungen von Tiirken zu tun. Hingegen sind "Germantown" in P
delphia oder die "Tyske Brygge" in Bergen Namen, die auf deutsche Siedler
Hiindler zuriickgehen. Der "Englische Garten" in Miinchen heisst so wegen seine
parkartigen Anlage. Die von Ihnen zitierten Parallelen "Dorf des Lu-Magana"
57) The first element of this name, 16 "man", could be compared to the I
inscriptions where the picture of "man" follows what can be presumed to
god's name in the genitive case; but in these cases a priestly title of office seem
likelier (cf. JRAS I975:2, I87). Since the name in Sumerian represents the ordina
type of proper names, 16 could rather be compared with the Proto-Drav
masculine gender marker *-aan/-an/-(k)kan (in complementary distribution
use of which may be illustrated with the word mr~kku "nose": mtzkk-an
with (long) nose" (cf. S.V. Shanmugam, Dravidian nouns (97-), 104 ff.)
suffix is most common in male personal names both ancient and modern in Tam
whether or not it has a counterpart in the Indus script (or was left to be suppl
cannot yet be decided. Note the use of 16 in Sumerian relative sentences, co
ponding to the Akkadian determinative pronoun !u, and the corresponde
between Sumerian 16-DN and Akkadian J'u-DN in the 3rd millennium onomastic
THE MELUJlYA VILLAGE 16 5
das 6-durus-NIM-e-ne halte ich fiir noch unsichere Zeugen. Das erste ist woh
nach einer Person L. genannt, der seinerseits ein Mann aus Magan gewesen sei
kann, aber nicht muss; im zweiten Fall liegt eine Verbindung mit einer Berufsbe-
zeichnung vor (cf. AfO 19 2154), also eine Parallele zum "Hirtendorf" oder dem
"Dorf der 'Bauern' (engar-e-ne)".
Ein sicherer Fall von Fremdenansiedlung (aber keiner freiwilligen!) wird bei
Sf-Su'en beschrieben; s. AfO 19 28 f. und JCS 2i 24 ff.; leider erfahren wir dor
nicht den Namen der Siedlung.
Wie intensiv waren die Kontakte tatsiichlich? Ich stelle mir die Situation so vor:
Es beginnt mit Warenaustausch entweder auf halber Strecke, etwa auf Bahrain
oder aber die Leute von Meluhla kamen urspriinglich bis nach Mesopotamien
Ganz sicher hatten sie die seetiichtigeren Schiffe, well sie das bessere Bauholz hatten.
Babylonische Schiffe haben sich mbglicherweise nie iiber die Hdhe von Bahrai
hinausgewagt. Unterstellen wir einmal, dass alles, was von Babylonien aus steuerbor
lag "Magan", alles backbord "Meluhla" war. Das muss nicht gegen unsere Iden
tifizierung von Meluhha sprechen; die Alten hatten ja nicht unser Landkartenbild
im Kopf.
Kontakte in Babylonien waren (so Th. Jacobsen) wohl immer dann besonders
ausfiihrlich, wenn es sich herumgesprochen hatte, dass irgendwo bedeutende
Bauaktionen im Gange waren wie unter Sargon oder Gudea. Dass dabei mancher
"hingen blieb", ist nattirlich. Waren es aber gerade immer solche Leute, die man
als "Meluhha" bezeichnete? Jedenfalls sind unsere "Tiirck" und "Unger" ebenso
wenig alles Nachfahren der Tiirken und Ungarn wie Scipio Africanus ein Afrikaner
war. Eine andere Mbglichkeit haben Sie selber noch angedeutet: das Aussehen.
Vielleicht war Meluhha hier und da "Herr Schwarz".
The following editorial note may be added to this discussion:
Indeed, D. O. Edzard rightly distinguishes two categories of geographic desig-

nations, derived or borrowed from other ones: those originating in a proven direct
relation with another geographic conception (country or place), and those not having
any such proven direct or apparent relation. To the examples of Edzard can be
added the names of the districts of New York "Harlem" and "Brooklyn", remem-
bering of the settlement of Dutchmen from the town of Haarlem and the village of
Breukelen, but, on the other hand, Memphis and Ithaca in the U.S.A. do'nt remember
of settlers from Old Egyptian Memphis or Homeric Ithaca. Also in the French
province of Provence the faniily-names Turc and Grec are found, but the name
Al(1)aman, in the same region and in the Dauphind, may be a reminiscence of the
Alaman, once invading these regions (probably also in the name of the village
Allemont in Isere and in the name of the Lac L6man); the "Arvernes" left their
name in the village of Vernagues (Bouches-du-Rh6ne). Another example: the name
of a region "Preussisch Holland" in East Prussia remembers of Dutch settlers in
the I6th century, just like "Holland" in East England does of Dutchmen making
polders there in the i7th century.
The more common and more natural case seems to be that of a direct proven
relation between the two geographic conceptions and this may support the suppo-
sition of the authors. The best comparable example is perhaps that of the seafaring
Normans giving their name to Normandy. W.F.L.

Paper

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Paper

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Melua Village: Evidence of Acculturation of Harappan Traders in Late Third

THE MELUHHA VILLAGE

IN LATE THIRD MILLENNIUM MESOPOTAMI

SIMO PARPOLA, ASKO PARPOLA and

Mesopotamian and Persian Gulf interrelations with the l

of Meluhha has been the subject of much controversy that has

Iranian Plateau and Mesopotamia 3). We do know that Indus artifacts

3) Cf. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, JAOS 92 (197z), 222-229; idem and M. Tosi,

I'u--li-Ju/ eme-bal me-luh-haki "Su-ilisu, Meluhha in

empire may be found in the inscriptions of Gudea of LagaS (2143-

taking place between Gudea's state and Meluhha on a fairly large

9) Edzard, AfO 22 (1968), 15 no. 15.33. Oppenheim, Anc. Mes. [Chicago 1

"port of trade" cities, often within the con

17) Cf. N. Ozgiig, Old World Archaeology (ed. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky), 1972,

nevertheless be presented in full in order to make the nature of the

I. Receipt of barley (2062 B.C.)

L 7175. Unp., cf. Delaporte, ITT IV (iiz2) no. 7157. Photograph

2. Account of grain delivery (2057 B.C.)

Rev. III I dumu ur-dnanaeson of Ur-Nante,

5 1'- a4ul-gi Lu-Sulgi,

3. Inventory of barley deposits (2047 B.C.)

BM 17751. Copy L. W. King, CT 5 (1898) pl. 36 f.

1. case obverse 2. case lower edge

3. case reverse 4. case left edge

Photographs: courtesy Istanb

i. obverse 2. right edge 3. reverse

Rev. IlI x 1347.1.0 gur 1347,1 gur (in)

4. List of grain rations (2047 B.C.)

II 17 glSkiri6 dnin-marki The garden of Ninmar.

5. List of grain rations (2047 B.C.)

Rev. 7 dub-bi x - m there being (only) one tablet.

6. List of grain rations

Copy: G. A. Barton, HLC III (1914) no. 368 (pl. 139).

Rev. III 1o 4.1.3 kalam-sa, -ga-ta 4,1,3 from Kalam-saga,

7. Debt-note (2046 B.C.)

BM 14594. Copy L. W. King, CT 3 (1898) pl. i7.

9 dub ur-&-5o dumu Tablet of Ur-En

8. List of grain rations (2045 B.C.)

Rev. VI 27 dumu me-lulh-ha erin 6 son of Melu

28 g6 id-a-ta Nanie temple, from the delta.

9. Receipt of grain (2030 B.C.)

L 705. Unp., cf. H. de Genouillac, ITT II (1910) 705. Phot

Io. Account of grain delivery (2028 B.C.)

6 0.3.0 me-lu h-ha-ta 0,3 (gur)from (the) Meluha (village),

16 1.1.0 ge-ba gem6 x,1 for grain rations of maidservants

I1. List of persons (undated)

L 8oi0 . Unp., cf. L. Delaporte, I

12. List of persons (undated)

6 ugula ur-nig overseer: Ur-nig.

spectively as "Dorf der Magan-Leute" and "Elamiterdorf" (cf., however,

4 i-dub dul-ma-nu: cf. a-li du6-giA ma-nu, ibid. p

II 7 TE lU TUR NE: unclear. Cf. Su-dumu (a profession), TUT i 4 viii 22z.

Nina, the village of shepherds, etc.); all of them

3 ugula ur-&-dam: here, as in lines 6, 9, r3 and ry, it is impossible to decide

Textual references to Meluhha and Meluhhans prior

enclave (see note to text 1:i 2), all references to it unanimously

of them had Sumerian names. Thus, three persons directly indentif

Summary of the texts bearing on the presence of Melubbans in Ur III pe

Text Date Provenance Text type AMeluhha reference Specifications

reference is to an individual called "Melulhha, son of Ur-ana-dua"

These factors could indeed explain most, if not

There are no accounts of Meluhhan sea-traders

20) For similar acculturation processes observed elsewhere c